Of it's self Atheism makes a simple statement, a rejection of the belief in deities. There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics. There is no statement, as to moral conduct, decorum, social interaction. There is no indication of Rights and obligations of,both citizen and government.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government and, as the theism's force themselves on the people,as history demonstrates.Does such an Atheistic government pick up the mantle of a godly omnipotence, and if so, is there a difference?
Atheism rejects the belief in god/s, not god/s as no Atheist possesses universal intelligence and it would be foolish to make such a claim. The exercise of reason however,give proper indication that a god/s do not exist. That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.
Atheism offers a chance to learn the truths that religion pretends to know.
I would agree and to add, explore that, which to the theist is unthinkable.
Also another opportunity to 'think out of the box!'
We evolved asking questions without knowing the answer, but we answered anyway. We invented the gods to provide answers. We evolved and asked more question and gave more answers, which caused more questions and more answers. It was not a looney idea, it was the best we could do. From those looney ideas we finally came to the point that the gods were not enough and a higher degree of critical thinking evolved. Is it a looney idea to think of the universe, as three dimensional? Serious science is now underway to rethink that premise, a premise, which may be considered a looney idea in ten years.
I recently attended a rather large gathering of retired professionals from all walks of life, to include a large contingent of religious people. They were quite convinced that to embrace Atheism was so far fetched that no reasonable person would even consider it. A similar position to yours.
There is nothing else here, no philosophy of life, of conduct, no political insight and no philosophy of economics.
It's true that non-believers don't have any specific mutual ethical, political or economic theory. However there is a strong tendency for atheists towards humanism: tolerance and open mindedness, compassion for the suffering, basic human rights, democratic government and rational and empirical based knowledge.
Under Marxism and too, Communism, Atheism is embraced by government.
While it's true that Mao and Stalin were oppressive, very few contemporary Western atheists would agree with their ideology or style of leadership. Humanists are appalled by what they did and those who still support it. We can't guarantee an atheist government would be oppressive but at least while atheists tend towards humanism it seems fairly unlikely.
That one would reject a god, may allude to the premise that there may be a god to reject. A side thought.
No. I reject The Purple Mushroom People of Saturn. that doesn't allude to any premise that Purple Mushroom People of Saturn might exist. God is no different regardless of the billions who believe in him.
I have embraced Atheism for over 55 years, to include a foxhole in Vietnam, and I have never considered myself an un-believer. I believe in the sovereignty of the individual and that the human capacity to reason is on a par with anything that may exist. I believe that Man is the ultimate guide to his own destiny and that there is no obstacle, self imposed or through nature that Man cannot over come. For me, that is a believer. For those that refute or deny that position are, in fact, the un-believers, as they turn their backs on the essence of Man, the capacity to reason,the reality of existence and embrace a promise of a promise, a nebulas belief in what is not.
There are a great many theists who embrace your tenants, but I am not sure that I do. I do not see democracy, as a guardian of anything, as I find the Stalin adage, "Democracy is the only road to socialism," to be accurate and I think that it would follow that, "Socialism is the only road to Marxism." a fitting follow through on that.
I am not quite sure what tolerance means. Is it to embrace a difference to the point that who and what you are is absorbed by that, which was embraced though a philosophy of tolerance?
Purple Mushroom People may exist on Saturn. I cannot prove , at this point, that they do not, can you? Admittedly, it is doubtful that they do, but since I do not possess a universal intelligence, I would be foolish to assert categorically
they they do not. This, I think, comes with an open mind to possibilities. The same applies to the gods. Based on what we now know of the universe, and that such knowledge is a contradiction to the beliefs and practices of theisms, it is unreasonable to accept such a existence, but not to adamantly deny. There is always that possibility that you may be all-knowing however.
I have never heard agnostic and Atheist used in such a combination. Can we use agnostic theist in a similar context? This is like the politician who attempts to agree with all sides, on all issues simply for the purpose of not having to take a position.
I had the occasion of meeting Madelyn Murray O'Hare in San Francisco a couple of times. I have never met a stronger or more committed human being. In a meeting with several others, she was asked what she thought of agnosticism. Her reply was, essentially monosyllabic, but her reference was a comparison to a chicken sitting on a fence. There is sufficient evidence for any one capable of objective reasoning to conclude that gods do not exist. I would venture that anyone embracing such a perspective is, essentially, that chicken hiding behind academia.
I would think that it is the reasoned Atheist who would refrain from an assertion that he possesses the ultimate knowledge or truth of what may or may not exist in or outside of the universe.---Serious study is now underway that may prove that the universe is two dimensional, not three. Yesterday I would have sworn that the universe was three dimensional. Now I don't know.
Your analogy, unlike Kris's does not work.I do understand what you are trying to say however,. I will reject the unbelievers claim of deities, not because I am in possession of a truth, but from a reasoned perspective, as a juror must do in a trial.
I read a recent post on here that was very insightful...something like....
Ask theists what it would take for them to become atheists...They would respond: "nothing could make us give up our beliefs !"
Ask atheists what it would take for them to believe in god...They would respond: "a multitude of things, If real evidence appeared today, there would be few atheists."
I disagree. There is not sufficient evidence to be certain that a god does not exist. It is 99.999999% likely there is no god but no amount of scientific investigation can give absolute certainty of the non-existence of something.
I like the phrase "the absence of evidence is not evidence of non-existence". We have to allow for that 0.00001% possibility for anything. That doesn't mean we at the moment (and probably until the end of man) should take any discussion about god seriously. That would be stupid. But claiming 100% certainty that he doesn't exist is pretty far out there as well.
There are no certainties in this world.You fly in an airplane with no certainty that you will land safely, why do it? You do it because it is reasonable to believe that you will land safely.There is less reasonable evidence to conclude that you will land safely then there is that a god exists.
I know a great many people, who are very bright, high IQ's, that believe in a god, they are not stupid people. They are intelligent professionals, with families and contribute greatly to society. There is nothing stupid here.
There may be stupid people in this world that believe in a variety of things, to include Atheism and agnosticism.
It would seem to me that to claim others, as stupid, without reservation is to possess an absolute truth, a 100% truth.
I do not claim a universal intelligence, a 100% knowledge of anything, what I do claim is a reasoned position based upon a knowledge of the origins, history and practice of theistic belief, along with an workable understanding of science and with that a reasoned determination that the existence of gods are highly improbable. With that it is incumbent upon me to take a position.
I am not fond of the word Atheist. It was, is and will always be a pejorative and it does not identify me or my thinking. The capacity to reason is the essence of human life, no more or no less.It is that, that best describes me and my thinking, a reasoning being, nothing else, as it is that which sets us apart and above the other earthly inhabitants. It is that 1.3% difference in DNA that allows us to ask the question and then we answer ourselves. It is Homo sapiens-sapiens, a wise Man, a discerning Man, a reasoning Man. Sapien. But i digress and I do tend to ramble. Thank you for the input.